I N THE SUPREME COURT O F JUDICATURE O F JAMAICA

I N COMMON LAW

S U I T NO. C . L . R 1 1 2 / 9 8

BETWEEN S H E I L A ROSE-GREEN P L A I N T I F F

A N D PATRICK ROSE-GREEN I S T DEFENDANT

A N D \ BANK O F NOVA S C O T I A JAMAICA L I M I T E D

2ND DEFENDANT

X r . J o h n G r a h a m and K r . C h r i s t o p h e r N z l c o l m f o r t h e p l a i n t i f f i n s t r u c t e d by K e s s r s . P a t t e r s o n , P h i l l i p s o n & G r a h a m , A t t o r n e y s - a t - - l a w .

M r s . Sandra X i n o t t - P h i l l i p s f o r t h e 2 n d d e f e n d a n t , i n s t r u c t e d by ~ e s s r ? i%ilyers, F le tcher & G o r d o n , A t t o r n e y s - a t - l a w .

F i r s t d e f e n d a n t n o t a p p e a r i n g and n o t r ep resen ted .

H e a r d : A p r i l 9 , 1 6 , June 1 7 , 1999 & 7 t h A p r i l , 2000

RECKORD, J

T h e w r i t of s u m m o n s i n this a c t i o n w a s f i l e d by t h e

p l a i n t i f f on t h e 1 5 t h of S e p t e m b e r , 1 9 9 8 . T h e s t a t e m e n t of

c l a i m da t ed 3rd D e c e i n b e r , 1 9 9 8 w a s s u b s e q u e n t l y f i l e d and l a t - r

a m e n d e d .

T h e a m e n d e d s t a t e m e n t of c l a i m f i l e d on t h e 1 3 t h of

A p r i l , 1 9 9 9 , readsas f o l l o w s -:

1. The p l a i n t i f f i s and was a t a l l m a t e r i a l

t i m e s t h e w i f e o f t h e f i r s t d e f e n d a n t .

2 . A t a11 materia .1 t i m e s , t h e f i r s t d e f e n d a n t

was a cus tomer of t h e second d e f e n d a n t and

i n d e b t e d t o them f o r sums s e c u r e d by

mor tgages o v e r proper , ty l o c a t e d a t l o t

45 U n i t y H a l l , Montego Bay i n t h e p a r i s h

o f S a i n t James and r e g i s t e r e d a t . r -

Volume 1183 F o l i o 480, owned j o i n t l y

by t h e p l a i n t i f f and t h e f i r s t d e f e n d a n t .

3. On o r a b o u t t h e 1 4 t h day of O c t o b e r , 1994

t h e f i r s t d e f e n d m t wrongfu l ly p r o c u r e d

and induced t h e p l a i n t i f f t o s i g n and

e x e c u t e an i n s t r u m e n t o f Guarantee by

which s h e g u a r a n t e e d t h e f i r s t d e f e n d a n t ' s

i n d e b t e d n e s s . t o t h e second d e f e n d a n t f o r

u n l i m i t e d sums.

4 . F u r t h e r , t h e f i r s t d e f e n d a n t w r o n g f u l l y

p r o c u r e d and unduly i n f l u e n c e d t h e

p l a i n t i f f t o s i g n and e x e c u t e Kor tgage

Deeds now r e g i s t e r e d a s numbers 656976,

739002, 976508, 836428, and 910231 on

t h e d a t e s and f o r t h e sums s e t o u t i n t h e

p a r t i c u l a r s h e r e u n d e r .

PARTICULARS

Mortgage N o .

659976

739002

D a t e R e g i s t e r e d Amount S e c u r e d

F e b r u a r y 27, 1 9 9 1 $125,000.00

December 1 7 , 1 9 9 2 53,000.00

F e b r u a r y 11, 1994 900,000.00

836428 November 3, 1994 750,000.00

9 1 0 2 3 1 September 3, 1 9 9 6 2,200,000.00

?The p l a i n t - i f f was i n d u c e d t o e x e c u t e t h e documents . .

ment ioned i n p a r a g r a p h s 3 and 4 h e r e o f by t h e

undue i n f l u e n c e o f t h e f i r s t d e f e n d a n t and unde r

h i s d i r e c t i o n and p u r s u a n t t o t h e f a i t h , t r u s t

and c o n f i d e n c e s h e r e p o s e d i n him a s h e r husband,

b u t w i t h o u t any s e p a r a t e o r i n d e p e n d e n t a d v i c e

and w i t h o u t d u e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e r e a s o n s f o r

o r t h e e f f e c t o f what s h e was d o i n g .

PARTICULARS

( i The f i r s t d e f e n d a n t knew t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f

d i d n o t u n d e r s t a n d t h e n a t u r e and consequence

o f t h e documents s h e was a s k e d t o s i g n .

(ii) The second d e f e n d a n t i n an a t t e m p t t o f u r t h e r

r e d u c e t h e c a p a c i t y o f t h e p l a i n t i f f t o

u n d e r s t a n d t h e n a t u r e o f t h e documents s h e

was be ing asked t o s i g n , caused t h e

p l a i n t i f i f t o s i g n many o f t h e

documents i n "blank" and a f t e r he

had r e c e i v e d t he . l o a n amounts.

(iii) The f i r s t d e f e n d a n t , husband o f t h e

p l a i n t i f f took d e l i b e r a t e advan t age

o f h i s p o s i t i o n o f t r u s t and f a i l e d

. T t o e n s u r e t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f sough t

. - -

independen t a d v i c e i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e

documents t h e p l a i n t i f f was asked t o

s i g n .

The second de f endan t had a c t u a l o r c o n s t r u c t i v e

n o t i c e o f t h e f a c t t h a t t h e f i r s t de f endan t was

exercising undue i n f l u e n c e over h e r .

PARTICULARS

(i) Tha t t h e second de f endan t knew t h a t t h e

P l a i n t i f f had r e c e i v e d no l e a a l a d v i s e .

(ii) Tha t t h e second de f endan t f a i l e d t o e n s u r e

t h a t - t h e p l a i n t i f f took independen t l e g a l

a d v i c e .

(iii) A l t e r n a t i v e l y , t h a t t h e second d e f e n d a n t

f a i l e d t o emphasize and communicate w i t h

t h e p l a i n t i f f t h e need t o s eek independen t

l e g i l adv i ce .

That t h e second d e f e n d a n t - f a i l e d t o in form

t h e p l a i n t i f f of t h e f u l l e x t e n t o f t h e

f i r s t d e f e n d a n t ' s l i a b i l i t y t o t h e second

defendan t when she was r e q u e s t e d t o e x e c u t e

t h e mortgages , g u a r a n t e e and s e c u r i t y

documents.

I n t h e p remises , t h e s a i d In s t rumen t o f Guarantee

and t h e Mortgages ove r t h e p r o p e r t y known a s Lot

45 Unity H a l l , Montego Bay i n t h e p a r i s h o f S a i n t

James r e g i s t e r e d a t Volume 1183 F o l i o 480 were o r

have become n u l l and vo id and a r e ~ n e n f o ~ c e a b l e .

AND THE PLAINTIFF CLAIMS:-

A d e c l a r a t i o n t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f was

wrongfu l ly induced t o s i g n and e x e c u t e

an i n s t rumen t of Guarantee d a t e d t h e

14 th day o f October , 1 9 9 4 .and

In s t rumen t s f o Mortgage numbered

656976, 739002, 796508, 836428 and

910231 ove r p rope r ty known a s Lot

4 5 Unity Hall, Montego Bay in the-

parish of Saint James registered

at Volume 1183 olio-480 of the . .

Register Book of Titles in favour

of the second defendant by the undue

influence of the first defendant and

that the said Instrument of Guarantee

and Instruments of Mortgage are null

and void. . -

2. An Order that the defendants do execute

all such documents and do all and such

other as may be necessary to discharge

the said mortgages and revoke the

Instrument of Guarantee.

An injunction to restrain the second

defendant whether by itself, its

servants and/or agents or howsoever

from transferring or in any way

dealing with the said property.

4. Any further or other relief as this

Honourable Court deems just.

Costs.

I t appea r s t h a t t h i s a c t i o n was f i l e d a s a r e s u l t of

an a c t i o n f i l e d by t h e second de fendan t , Bank of Nova S c o t i a

Jamaica L imi ted , a g a i n s t t h e f i r s t de f endan t P a t r i c k Rose-Green

and h i s w i f e , t h e p l a i n t i f f S h e i l a Rose-Green, on t h e 1 3 t h o f

August , 1998, s 'eeking t o r e c o v e r from them t h e sum o f $28,561,686.17

a s monies loaned t o them t o g e t h e r w i t h i n t e r e s t a s a t 30 th J u l y ,

1998. (See S u i t No. C .L . B240/98).

Fol lowing upon t h i s a c t i o n be ing f i l e d , t h e second

d e f e n d a n t , _ ~ a n k o f Nova S c o t i a Jamaica Limited i s s u e d a summons

on t h e 9 t h o f ~ e c e m b e r , 1998, app ly ing f o r an o r d e r t h a t

1. The p l a i n t i f f ' s a c t i o n be s t r u c k o u t

and t h e w r i t o f summons and a l l

subsequen t p roceed ings f i l e d h e r e i n

s e t a s i d e a s a g a i n s t t h e second

d e f e n d a n t on t h e ground t h a t

( a ) it d i s c l o s e s no cause of

a c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e second

de fendan t and /o r

( b ) it i s f r i v o l o u s and v e x a t i o u s

and/'or an abuse of t h e p roces s

o f t h e Cour t .

2 . The c o s t s o f t h i s a p p l i c a t i o n and of t h e

a c t i o n t o d a t e he reof be t h e second

d e f e n d a n t ' s and be t a x a b l e immediately.

I t i s t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h i s summons by t h e second

de fendan t t h a t I am now engaged.

M r s . M i n o t t - P h i l l i p s t e n d e r e d . a . d o c u m e n t c o n t a i n e d - ~

i n t e n pages t h e second d e f e n d a n t " s , . u b ~ n i s s i o n i n s u p p o r t cC t h e

summons which i s a t t a c h e d .

I n r e s p o n s e t h e p l a i n t i f f th rough h e r A t t o r n e y , informed

t h e C o u r t t h a t s h e was n o t r e l y i n g on t h e d o c t r i n e o f non - es t

f a c t u m i n t h i s summons. M r . Graham s u b m i t t e d t h a t t h e q u e s t i o n f - \ L/' whether a n a c t i o n o u g h t t o b e s t r u c k o u t i s a m a t t e r o f h e s c r e t i o n .

H e r e f e r r e d t o t h e . - White Book page 328, r u l e 1 8 / 1 9 / 3 . E x e r c i s e

o f t h i s ' d e s c r e t i o n i s used s p a r i n g l y and o n l y i n c l e a r and -- : 1

obvious c a s e s . Counsel f o r t h e p l a i n t i f f a l s o ;e fer red t o t h e

S u i t C.L.B240/98 Bank of Nova S c o t i a Jamaica L imi ted a g a i n s t

P a t r i c k and S h e i l a Rose-Green.

I n view o f t h i s c l a i m a g a i n s t t h e p l a i n t i f f a s a

g u a r a n t o r of h e r husband's i n d e b t e d n e s s which was u n l i m i t e d i n

t i m e o r amount which wns now a t $28.5M, t h i s was a s i t u a t i o n

where a w i f e would need an independen t l e g a l a d v i c e . R e Undue

I n f l u e n c e , M r . Graham r e y a r d e i t h e s e c e n a d e c e n d n n t ' s

submiss ion on t h i s p o i n t a s e r r o n e o u s and r e f e r r e d t o t h e

p l a i n t i f f ' s a f f i d a v i t f i l e d on t h e 22nd o f Oc tober , 1998, a t

p a r a g r a p h 8 . He s u b m i t t e d t h a t t h e documents e x e c u t e d a t t h e

bank were t o h e r m a n i f e s t d i s a d v a n t a g e . She had been m a r r i e d

t o t h e f i r s t de fen ,dan t f o r o v e r twenty y e a r s . There s h o u l d

be a n a j u d i c a t i o n i n t h i s c a s e a f t e r a t r i a l .

Counsel r e a d t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s a f f i d a v i t d a t e d 9 t h of

A p r i l , 1999. The e x h i b i t S.R.G. I1 a t t a c h e d c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e d

t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f had been w r i t i n g t o t h e bank from 1996.

T h i s was l o n g b e f o r e a n y s u i t had been f i l e d . The p l a i n t i f f w a s

a g u a r a n t o r o f t h e l o a n t o h e r husband, t h e f i r s t d e f e n d a n t , a n d

n o t a co-borrower d e s p i t e b e i n g d e s c r i b e d as c o - a p p l i c a n t i n t h e

a p p l i c a t i o n form. I I

M r . Graham c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e q u e s t i o n o f e d u c a t i o n i s i

b u t one o f t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n which a t r i b u n a l was t o t a k e i n t o I (- a c c o u n t i n d e c i d i n g w h e t h e r t h e w i l l o f t h e p e r s o n r e l y i n g on t h e

d o c t r i n e o f undue i n f l u e n c e h a d been s o a f f e c t e d . S e e Bank 1 E x t e r i o r I n t e r n a t i o n a l v s . Mann and o t h e r s , ' C 1 9 9 5 ) 1 AER p. 936.

- - - ,7111 t h e i n s t a n t c a s e t h e p l a i n t i f f was n o t i n v i t e d b y t h e

bank t o s e e k l e g a l a d v i c e - H e s u b m i t t e d t h a t a l l o f t h e d e c i d e d

c a s e s s t a t e t h a t where t h e r e i s t h e p o s s i b i l i t y where one p a r t y

i s d e f e n d a n t a g a i n s t t h e o t h e r , t h e n t h e l e n d i n g i n s t i t u t i o n i s I p u t on n o t i c e - it mus t a d v i s e t h e w i f e t o s e e k i n d e p e n d e n t 1 l e g a l a d v i c e .

Re -Def i c i ency i n p l e a d i n q s

M r . Graham s u b m i t t e d t h a t t h e o n l y t h i n g a p e r s o n r e l y i n g

on undue i n f l u e n c e t o do i s t o p l e a d t h e f a c t s which yl.veu r ise t o

t h e e q u i t y e i t h e r by m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o r undue i n f l u e n c e . It

i s t h e n f o r t h e d e f e n d a n t i n r e s p o n s e t o t h e f a c t s b e i n g p l e a d e d ,

t o p l e a d and p rove t h a t h e i s a bona f i d e p u r c h a s e r f o r v a l u e

w i t h o u t n o t i c e . S e e B a r c l e y s Bank v s . B o u l t e r & Anothe r (19931_

2 AER. p. 1002;

Royal Bank o f S c o t l a n d v s . E t r i d q e - (1997) 3 AER. p. 628;

Avon F i n a n c e Co. l t d . vs . Br , idge (1985) ; 2 A E K . p . 281'.

F r i v o l o u s , Vexa t ious - Abuse o f P r o c e s s o f Cour t .

See Meadinqs, P r i n c i p l e s & P r a c t i c e by S i r J a c k J a c o b , a t page 2 2 2 .

Supreme C o u r t P r a c t i c e (1997) Volume 1 p a r t 1 - page 3 3 4 .

Hemington v s . S c a l e s (1897) 2 ch . 1.

M r . Graham s u b m i t t e d t h a t though a C o u r t w i l l not:on

a f f i d a v i t e v i d e n c e , o r d e r a p l e a d i n g t o be s t r u c k o u t on t h e

ground t h a t t h e s t a t e m e n t s a r e f a l s e , " t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n t h e dl.,

p r e s e n t c a s e showed t h e d e f e n c e t o be f r i v o l o u s , and v e x a t i o u s ,

and one which ough t t o b e s t r u c k o u t a s b e i n g an a b u s e o f t h e

p r o c e d u r e o f t h e C o u r t " .

Counsel f u r t h e r s u b m i t t e d t h a t i n a l l i n t e r l o c u t o r y

a p p l i c a t i o n s t h e t r i b u n a l s h o u l d be wary o f a t t e m p t i n g t o come

t o f i n d i n g s of f a c t b a s e d on competing a f f i d a v i t s s i n c e choos ing

between them was t h e f u n c t i o n . o f t h e t r i a l judge , n o t t h e judge

i.n t h e i n t e r l o c u t o r y a p p l i c a t i o n - See Day v s . RAC Motorinq

S e r v i c e s L td . - (1999) 1 AER. page 1007.

L ino type H a l l v . Baker (1992) 4 AER p . 887.

Counsel s u b n i t t e d t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h e p l a i n t i f f :

She deponed t o t h e f a c t t h a t s h e reposed g r e a t t r u s t and c o n f i d e n c e

i n h e r husband - She was a mere c h i l d when s h e g o t m a r r i e d . Her

husband was a man o f some prominence and s u b s t a n c e - s h e was

a n a c c o u n t i n g c l e r k and t h e n became an i n s u r a n c e a g e n t . Undue

i n f l u e n c e was e x e r c i s e d o v e r h e r by him and t h i s a f f e c t e d h e r

1 . I t was n o t h e r w i l l . The bank had a n o b l i g a t i o n t o

w r i t e h e r t o p r o c u r e independen t a d v i c e . There i s no d i s p u t e

, that they did no such thing. -In the context of all those

circumstances the Court should dismiss the second defendant's

claim and strike out the summons.

Mrs. Minott-Phillips on behalf of the second defendant

submitted her reply on the law in writing covering three pages

which are attached.

Nr. Graham in reference to new matters raised by the

second defendant submitted that-the question as to which category,

whether actualor.presumed undue influence cannot arise until

after the trial.

In Etridge No. 2, the primary obligation was for the

Court to lay down in a comprehensive way what it is that a bank

must do in order to discharge its duty to satisfy itself that

Ct an individual who contend that he or she had been affected by

~ I I U U ~ : infiuence that that affect does not fix the bank with

notice.

In Etridye No. 1 this dealt with the question of good

defence. An application to strike out the writ would not

accord with principles of law and practise. This would be

driving away the plaintiff from the judgment seat before having

heard from her.

This was an end to the submissions.

Conclusion

The central issue arising from this summons is whether

there was any duty on either the first or second defendants to

ensure that the plaintiff obtained independent legal advice when

she signed and executed the following:-

(i) Instrument of Guarantee on the 14th of

October 1994, for her husband's indebtedness

to the second defendant for unlimited sums; .- -

(ii) A number of Mortgage Deeds securing sums

totalling $4,553,000 from the second defendant

over .the period October 1992 to October 1995;

(iii) Promissory Notes totalling $9,910,079.40

due from both herself and her husband in

favour of the second defendant over the

period August, 1993 to September 1995;

(iv) Guaranteeing loan of $3,200,000. made to

the first defendant done on the 17th of

November, 1994, to settle indebtedness

already incurred by the plaintiff and

her husband jointly for improvement

of their home;

(v) Guaranteeing Scotia Plan Loans

totalling $4,969,473. 82 made to

the first defendant by the second

defendant.

The p l a i n t i f f i s no longer r e l y i n g on t h e d o c t r i n e of

non e s t factum a s a defence. I t a k e it t h e r e f o r e t h a t she i s

admi t t i ng t h a t she was a p a r t y t o t h e t r a n s a c t i o n s mentioned I

above. She c la ims however, t h a t t h e p a r t p layed by h e r was I

because of t h e under i n f l u e n c e of he r husband, t h e f i r s t defendant . 1 I I - But how does t h i s i nvo lve t h e second d e f e n d a n t , t h e Bank o f Nova

C S c o t i a Jamaica Limited. She c la ims tha.t t h e Bank owes h e r a 1 l e g a l du ty t o a d v i s e he r t o s eek independent l e g a l adv ice be fo re 1 s ign ing t h e s e documents, and because of i t s f a i l u r e t o do s o , I

she s igned t h e documents w i t h o u t l e g a l advice -and t h e r e f o r e ,

i s n o t be l i a b l e t o t h e Bank under t h e guaran tee t h a t she gave.

The second defendant conten&however, t h a t t h e Bank- 1

had n e i t h e r a c t u a l nor c o n s t r u c t i v e n o t i c e of t h e undue i n f l u e n c e 1 I

and that i n any e v e n t , t h e loan t r a n s a c t i o n s were n o t t o t h e

mani fes t d i sadvantage of t h e p l a i n t i f f and t h a t i n f a c t she

bene f i t t ed from t h e l o a n s .

Counsel f o r t h e Bank r e f e r r e d t o t h e d e c i s i o n of t h e

House of Lordsin C . I . B . C . Mortgages p i c v s . P i t t (1993) 4 AER

page 433 where Lord Browne - Wilkinson . . s a i d a t page 4 4 1 .

" I f t h i r d p a r t i e s were t o be f i x e d wi th c o n s t r u c t i v e n o t i c e of undue i n f l u e n c e i n r e l a t i o n t o every t r a n s a c t i o n between a husband and a w i f e , such t r a n s a c t i o n s would become a lmos t imposs ib le . On every purchase o f a home i n j o i n t names, t h e b u i l d i n g s o c i e t y o r bank f inanc ing t h e purchase would have t o i n s i s t o n meeting t h e w i f e s e p a r a t e l y from he r husband, a d v i s e h e r a s t o t h e n a t u r e of t h e t r a n s a c t i o n and recommend h e r t o t a k e l e g a l adv ice s e p a r a t e from t h a t of he r husband. I f t h a t

;were n o t done , t h e f i n a n c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n would have t o r u n t h e r i s k o f a s u b s e q u e n t a t t e m p t by t h e w i f e o r a v o i d h e r l i a b i l i t i e s under t h e ..

mortgage on t h e g rounds o f undue i n f l u e n c e o r m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . To e s t a b l i s h t h e law i n t h a t s e n s e would n o t b e n e f i t t h e a v e r a g e m a r r i e d c o u p l e and would d i s c o u r a g e f i n a n c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s from making t h e advance . "

Where t h e p l a i n t i f f i s i n t h e p o s i t i o n o f b e i n g a s u r e t y

o n l y f o r a l o a n made o n l y t o h e r husband, t h e n a p resumpt ion may --

a r i s e t h a t t h e Bank had c o n s t r u c t i v e n o t i c e o f t h e h u s b a n d ' s

undue i n f l u e n c e . S e e B a r c l a y s Bank p l c v s . O ' B r i e n (1993) 4 AER

p a g e 417.

3n the o t h e r hand, where t h e l o a n i s made t o t h e

husband and t h e w i f e j o i n t l y , it c a n n o t b e s a i d t h a t t h e t r a n s a c t i o n

was m a n i f e s t l y d i sadvan . t ageous t o her . .

"A c l a i m t o s e t a s i d e a t r a n s a c t i o n on t h e ground o f under i n f l u e n c e whe the r presumed o r a c t u a l c a n n o t s u c c e e d u n l e s s t h e c l a i m a n t p r o v e s t h a t t h e impugned t r a n s a c t i o n

was m a n i f e s t l y d i s - a d v a n t a g e o u s t o him." ( S e e P i t t ( s u p r a ) a t

p a g e 4 3 8 ) .

I n c l e a r and u n c h a l l e n g e d a f f i d a v i t e v i d e n c e t h e p l a i n t i f f

p e r s o n a l l y b e n e f i t t e d from s e v e r a l o f t h e t r a n s a c t i o r s e n t e r e d w i t h

t h e Bank a l o n g w i t h h e r husband. They were a l l made f o r t h e

imgrovement o f t h e i r m a t r i m o n i a l home.

Save f o r S c o t i a P l an l o a r s t o t a l l i n g j u s t under $5 m i l l i o n

made t o t h e husband p e r s o n a l l y I f i n d t h a t t h e bank was under no

du ty t o ensu re t h a t t h e w i f e had independent l e g a l adv i ce .

There w i l l t h e r e f o r e be an o r d e r i n t e rms o f t h e second

d e f e n d a n t ' s summons d a t e d 9 t h December, 1-998, pa ragraph 1 ( a ) and

paragraph 2 a s amended.